Now Obama's cronies have started to blame Romney for "stirring things up" by denouncing the attacks right after they happened. Hmm. I wonder why they would be doing that. Could it be an attempt to make Obama look better than the wimp he is to boost his campaign numbers that are lowering as the campaign season is coming to an end? Could it be that Romney did the presidential thing and addressed the attack immediately as the leader of the United States of American should do in a crisis like this? Could it be that Obama has never had an interest in International Relations and this incident put that weakness in the forefront of his run for a second term as President?
Here's a glimpse of Axelrod, which speaks for itself...and notice that he looks like they pulled him out of being embalmed and forgot to do the make-up before the open casket...
Now on to Susan Rice. Did you all notice that each of her interviews looked like they were recorded at the same time and that they may have just plugged the anchor person into the interview? Wow! It seriously was crazy that she could say what she said about the Benghazi attacks being protests that already started over a dinky video that was barely seen on Youtube when the rest of the world knew that, first, this was 9/11, second, this was an American Ambassador that was known to have less security than he needed. Need I go on? How many people are that stupid? ...Okay, don't answer that question.
Here are just four examples of the interviews with Susan Rice. First of all, I have not respect for the U.N. because they cover what their real agenda is with humanitarian aid and such. Therefore, I don't respect what she has to say because she is a puppet of the U.N., as is Obama and Hillary Clinton. Enough said about that. Here you go with the four examples.
Now, here is some documentation for what is going on with the blame game. First, here is what is going on with the blame on Susan Rice. Mind you, she may not actually deserve what she is getting in negative press, etc., because she is just a puppet of the U.N. with a script that she was not allowed to divert from.
U.S. Ambassador Susan Rice at center of storm over comments on attack in Benghazi
A month after the assault on the U.S. mission in Benghazi, a fateful series of television appearances by Susan E. Rice, the American ambassador to the United Nations, is haunting the Obama administration in the face of allegations that it deliberately attempted to play down suspicions of terrorist involvement.
Rice made the rounds of the Sunday morning talk shows on Sept. 16, five days after the attack in the Libyan city, and in each one she said the fatal assault appeared to have stemmed from a spontaneous protest over an anti-Islam video.
The appearances were part of a gradual increase in the public profile of an administration insider, one eyed as a potential successor to Hillary Rodham Clinton as secretary of state. Today, Rice’s profile has been raised, but hardly in the way that she or her White House supporters would have liked.
The administration’s characterization only days after Rice’s TV appearances that the assault in Libya was a terrorist attack has raised questions about why she attributed the incident to a protest that officials now say did not take place. Republicans have pressed for answers on whether she simply went too far in her assessment or was reading from an administration script that was designed to protect President Obama’s record on national security in an election year.
In an interview Monday with The Washington Post, Rice said she relied on daily updates from intelligence agencies in the days before her television appearances and on a set of talking points prepared for senior members of the administration by intelligence officials. She said there was no attempt to pick and choose among possible explanations for the attack.
“Absolutely not,” Rice said. “It was purely a function of what was provided to us” and had been given to Congress the day before.
Administration officials have risen to her defense. On Monday, Clinton said she wanted to “avoid some kind of political gotcha.”
“I take responsibility” for what happened on Sept. 11, Clinton told CNN in an interview shortly after arriving in Lima, capital of Peru, for a visit.
Republicans have dismissed suggestions that they are playing politics. And Rice’s explanation of her remarks, which echoes that of other administration officials, including Vice President Biden, has not blunted the criticism.
“The facts are there was never a riot,” Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) said Sundayon “Face the Nation.”
“My belief is that that was known by the administration within 24 hours and, quite frankly, Susan Rice, on your show on September 16th, the president on the 18th and the 25th, kept talking about an attack inspired by a video.”
Furor over comments
The White House has said that it turned to Rice to make the administration’s case on the Benghazi attack because it made sense to have a top diplomat speak to the loss of the U.S. ambassador to Libya, J. Christopher Stevens.
Rice has previously said little about the controversy generated by her TV appearances. Aides have said that her comments have been taken out of context and that she stressed at the time that the FBI was still investigating the attack.
read more at http://www.washingtonpost.com
Now there's Hillary. She should have come out with a statement as much as President Obama. Hillary, again a puppet, seemed to be blind to the fact that Benghazi was an obvious terrorist attack on America. It wasn't in America, but it was technically on American soil.
As you know, Hillary Clinton came out with Obama to make a statement well after Romney made his very impressively commanding and direct speech. Here is what they came out with...puppets for sure!!!